As an editor, I always found scandals around politicians' expenses such as travelling to exotic places for meetings or spending hundreds on restaurant meals reliably dull. Usually, they are tabloid fodder, designed to foster outrage about those greedy bastards living it up on taxpayers' dollars. Often, the stories encourage cynicism about politics at a time when trust is already fragile.

But the recent flurry of expenses revelations has a different flavour and will prove to be an early test of whether Prime Minister Tony Abbott will lead a government of integrity or not. This time, the question of cynicism is one for him to counter.

The reason is that there is a whiff of possible dishonesty about at least one of the expense claims and a question of consistency about how people are treated for similar transgressions. Abbott can't just ride this out as he attempted on 3AW this week, when he said that ''there are always going to be arguments at the margin'' over the misuse of entitlements.

Advertisement

To date, Fairfax has reported on seven politicians who have recently repaid expense claims. There is Abbott (who repaid about $1700 for claims to attend the weddings of then colleagues Sophie Mirabella and Peter Slipper); Attorney-General George Brandis (repaid $1600 for claims to attend the wedding of radio personality Michael Smith); Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce (repaid $650 for a Commonwealth car to attend the same wedding); Labor MP Mark Dreyfus (repaid $466 he claimed for accommodation in Canberra when he was really on a skiing holiday), Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and Assistant Defence Minister Stuart Robert ($354 each for a wedding in 2011) and Western Australian Liberal MP Don Randall (repaid $5259 for claiming for ''electorate business'' a trip to Cairns with his wife.)

Joyce admitted he was wrong to claim for a car to take him to a wedding. Dreyfus said his claim was an ''administrative error''. Senator Brandis denies the claim was wrong, but said he repaid to ''resolve any ambiguity''. Abbott said he attended the weddings in an official capacity, admitted the rules were unclear and repaid the money ''to avoid doubt''. Morrison said it was an error, and Robert returned the money to avoid ''ambiguity''.

The exception is Randall, and it is his case that takes this story into more serious territory. He has so far provided no explanation for how his Cairns trip was for ''electorate business''. Fairfax reported that a week after his overnight November visit, he updated his pecuniary interest register to note that he and his wife had taken possession of a Cairns investment property, leading to the suspicion - only that at this stage - that this may have been the purpose of the visit. Randall paid back the money ''to ensure the right thing is done by the taxpayer and alleviate any ambiguity''. But that's far from good enough.

In the other instances, as much as they might fail the ''pub'' test, there is no suggestion of dishonesty or fraud, just stretching the rules a little, or a broad interpretation of ill-defined terms in a system that lacks oversight. Clearly something has to be done about that now, but if Randall's primary reason to travel to Cairns was to take possession of a house, that is something else entirely.

There is a well-known example of a former MP who was not allowed to pay back dubious expense claims. Former speaker Peter Slipper has been charged with three ''dishonesty'' offences after an Australian Federal Police investigation.

What is alleged is that Slipper took tours to wineries around Canberra on three days in 2010. Each time, instead of filling out the Cabcharge for the full amount owed, it is alleged that he requested multiple Cabcharges be filled out, claiming different amounts for short trips such as ''Parliament House to suburbs'' and ''from suburbs to suburbs''. The allegation is that Slipper knew what he was doing was wrong. ''The details were false, to his knowledge,'' the AFP says.

This is a critical distinction between Slipper's predicament and others. Except, possibly, for Don Randall. Unless he has a good explanation about what electorate business brought him from Perth to Cairns it seems impossible that the federal police would not eventually investigate in the same way it looked into Slipper's alleged breaches. The system is all over the place - at the moment, the Finance Department is believed to be investigating. It's not about the money - Slipper's entire Cabcharge bill was less than $1000. It's about allegations of deliberate misuse of public money by an elected representative.

A full week after Fairfax revealed the Cairns trip, Mr Abbott tried to defend Mr Randall, saying that he went to Cairns for ''very important discussions'' with then Coalition Whip Warren Entsch, whose electorate takes in Cairns. The purpose of that meeting has not been revealed, nor why Randall's wife needed to be there. It is far from a satisfactory explanation.

In Victoria, Frankston MP Geoff Shaw faces fraud charges over allegedly using his parliamentary car for his commercial hardware business and one charge of misconduct in public office. Again, the issue here is Shaw's intention, whether he knew what was being done and whether he authorised it. He denies the allegations.

A Victorian review into entitlements released in February was scathing, saying the process was complex, inconsistent and lacked transparency - there is no public reporting on MPs' use of entitlements. Attempts have been made to tighten up the federal system over the years, too, with little result.

The Greens' proposal of a federal anti-corruption body, or at least an independent officer to oversee and advise on entitlements, is starting to look reasonable. Abbott doesn't like the Greens' proposals, but says he is open to ideas for reform.

But it's Abbott's responsibility now, and unless he does something soon, he will face a very cynical electorate indeed.

Gay Alcorn is an Age columnist and former editor of The Sunday Age.

Twitter: gay_alcorn.

323 comments

I believe the word 'trust' was thrown about in the lead up to the election. Well, obviously there's not much trust in politicians when it comes to expenses and I can't see the issue going away. If only Labor could go to town on this one.

Commenter

mutt

Date and time

October 25, 2013, 3:43AM

Labor will not go to town as it would open up a can of worm's for them as well ..Labors inaction basically means they are as just as guilty

Commenter

miney

Date and time

October 25, 2013, 4:05AM

The worst part is that Abbott has come out and created and excuse for Randall (after about 10 days and after repeated questioning about the reason) and Randall has told a local paper in Perth a completely different excuse... Trust... can't see it in this mob in govt...

I bet that Hacka will be missing in action on this one today...

One Term Tony

Commenter

n720ute

Location

North Coast NSW

Date and time

October 25, 2013, 4:06AM

I wish Labor could indeed go to town on this one, but there is a certain element of hypocrisy when a retiring politician like Bob Carr, who is now going to work at universities, is also going to receive a pension of a mere $300,000 pa, indexed, for the term of his natural life. They all voted for such a system or it wouldn't exist.

To me, there isn't much moral difference in these "expenses" and the pensions that are so high. I thought their salaries were supposed to be high enough in the first place to compensate for whatever personal loss the outrageous pension is now supposed to provide. Snouts in troughs all round.

Commenter

AlexOv

Date and time

October 25, 2013, 4:23AM

Not much will be done about this, since all sides of the government are involved.

The newspapers and the public must keep pushing the issue to TRY to make government realise that they have a responsibility.

In normal business all expenses have to be justified. Why should politicians be different?

Commenter

shanncon

Date and time

October 25, 2013, 4:30AM

mutt - I think we have to rely on the Greens for this one.

Commenter

Ross

Location

MALLABULA

Date and time

October 25, 2013, 4:32AM

Tony Abbott August 25 2013"We know that you expect us to be as frugal and prudent with your money, which we hold on trust from you, as you would be with your own hard-earned savings. We will be a no surprises, no excuses government, because you are sick of nasty surprises and lame excuses from people that you have trusted with your future... This election is all about trust." Omitted: "This pledge remains valid until Sunday September 8 2013"

Commenter

rext

Date and time

October 25, 2013, 4:46AM

going out on a limb here but guessing Labor is in a glass houses/stone throwing situation here hence their silence on the issue.

Commenter

StBob

Date and time

October 25, 2013, 4:53AM

Terrible times we live in. Everyone voted for this to happen. What a shame.

Commenter

The Other Guy1

Date and time

October 25, 2013, 4:55AM

Mutt don't forget Honesty, Character, Adult. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH All we hear is embarrassment after embarrassment day in day out, One his knees begging forgiveness in other countries for his language but he in Aus he is tough and full of rhetoric,, Actually all the LNP seem to act that way BWHAHAHAHAHAHHA . They have tried to use the old Deflect tactics but it not working. You notice as well that anything to do with the LNP the AFP either go so slow in hope people will forget or they buck pass. We need a Royal Commission into the AFP. Many requests have been made to the Ombudsman and lets hope he acts.